i know about it so i can tell my community. i want to smell every fark and home who did it. i want to know everything in the fillmore. from this day out or file an injunction to stop everything get my name is ace, dammit and i am on this case. >> any other public comment? on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> could i-i want to thank the presenters for coming today. i know this a very important item for the business to have applied good as you know, many personal businesses seem to be living our city and this is one way we can be helpful as a city to keep our small businesses which is really the economic engine in san francisco. because the two authors of this

hearing were not able to come today, but to have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? supervisor weiner okay. there is a motion and without any objection that motion passes >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk anything else be one >> no further business. >> so, meeting adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> good afternoon. welcome to the planning commission regular

hearing for thursday, july 7, 2016, i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu we expect commissioner president fong to be absent and commissioner johnson to arrive shortly commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda is proposed for continuance harrison street a large project authorization at the time of issuance was proposed jill july 14th but now staff is requesting it be continued to august 11, 2016, a notification issue that needs to be renoticed

i know your calendars are impacted on august 4th and 11 have a couple of more continuances to consider that request to august 11th and further under your reading for the san francisco municipal transportation agency informational presentation they're requesting a one week continuance to july 14th items 14 ab for cases at the fulsome street large project authorization and conditional use authorization is requesting a continuance to august 4th under the discretionary review item 15 for case at the jackson street discretionary review both parties the project sponsor and

the dr requesters are in agreement to continue this matter i believe they're on the vertical of an agreement in a withdrawal today we'll continue to october 13th. >> okay i have no further items proposed for continuance and just as sort of an fy the next week the testimony tdm will be requesting for august 12th or 16 as well as for your consideration. >> entertaining any public comment on any of the continuance items. >> commissioners john harrison street i would ask to hear 26 harrison the first available date august 11th a nose request to hear on august 11th thank you. >> additional speakers.

>> speaking on behalf of the project sponsor on fulsome street we deeply appreciate the continuance to august 4th thank you. >> thank you, mr. mary questions neptd. >> i'm eric with the quarter district we're in support for the continuance on harrison street and the 1 on fulsome street we're in confusions with the developers to get the increase the affordable housing thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> is there any additional public comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> i'd like to propose continuance of item one 26 hundred harrison to august 11th and item 6 san francisco isn't

it a fact presentation july 14th, also item 14 a and 14 b fulsome to august 4th, and item 153630 jackson street october 15th. >> commissioners on that a motion to continue items as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on there commission matters item 2 consideration of draft minutes for 2016 i'll note we're a couple corrections in ms. swedish after the issuance of draft minutes that be corrected. >> any speakers on the draft

minutes for june 22nd? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move as noted by secretary owen. >> second. >> thank you commissioners than on that motion to adopt the minutes as amended commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us on item 3 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you. i think there was an excellent series in the chronicle on homelessness and culminating with an editorial on the first page that was well written and district attorney make criticism but put forth some possible solutions some of the keys in the i do not like joyously that that is a problem that is present in good times and bad times not related

fully to increasing housing pricing and things like that and it is kind of a national disgrace because it is much more visible in the cities like san francisco that is geographyly small and population is relatively small maybe homelessness problems in other cities not as dense as ours is and they noted we spend 200 and $41 million per year on the homelessness problem it was 76 different agencies and 4 hundred contracts they pointed out the fact a lot of offer o overlap and no performances they think this needs to be made for efficient and they have to demand comprehensive care and points to examples of houston and salt lake city and new york

city excellent tracking systems particularly new york that puts an emphasis on services enhancement it is all the way down hues and deal with the chronicling homelessness more directly and targeted than we do we kind of seem to handle all situations dental we'll need to big bond issue of $2 million and work with other jurisdictions because it is not just a problem in san francisco it is a problem that is a national one and we have to work with other counties in the area in fact, you know at least 4 hundred and 50 new homeless poem that will soon become homeless come to san francisco every year and dispense any idea this is as sanctiony for people probation officer want to come here and not participate in programs or

follow the laws that was some really well written editorial and particularly the part will providing car comprehensive care and having rules i'll urge to you read if it you get it is the sunsetted july 3rd san francisco chronicle. >> couple of comments i have piggybacking off of commissioner antonini's you'll see items that that written on homelessness a cooperated effort between news occults not pick up a publication on line without saying something about the subject matter is it so precedence is i've accident go here for 25 years it is coordinated a lot of the ideas have validity to them i hope we and the supervisors and mayor and everyone involved can look

at it and determine how we can get stuff implemented i was reading the new york times on friday july 1st came across an item of capacity talking to to the sidewalk negative impact new york here we are in san francisco talking about not enough parks or transportation all this population coming but no infrastructure to support it and here 2, 3, 4 new york city the population increased so much the sidewalks were not big enough to hold the people especially in key areas and talking about people walker in the street not walking on the sidewalk that is something that really, really resonated with me there are limitations physical limitations to growth this is one of them and interesting enough tim 7 vision zero one of the items that we have in that general plan amendment talks

about the width of the sidewalk need took wide enough to handle the people and the infrastructure not just transportation and he in yesterday's chronicle the city will buy a new park that will be coming at 11 a half acre in the park which is i believe part of eastern neighborhoods vision and plan to create for parks that city is incredibly underserved that won't be online for another 10 years and no parks coming 15 years later this is some of the frustration we're seeing in the city to have all the population but the infrastructure is far behind it thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters drouchlts. >> thank you joan's and good afternoon, commissioners i want to take a moment and introduce you to the interns that are many

in the audience the internship summer program has begun if i can ask you to stand up are for a minute of two i'll node go through the list 31 interns in the department blessed with a people from a variety of backgrounds and from all over the country they work full-time equipment for students over 5 hundred applications some of the projects that they're working on the civic and transportation planning, they're working on affordable housing and sustained issues alternate historic conservation context statements as part of project programming it is a 12 week program each internship or intern is paired with a supervisor and weekly site visits asia presentations lead by the members of staff

obviously they come to hear the preservation in our part of word and the summer they'll present their work to the staff at which time the christmas it welcome to attend we're appreciated of your work and welcome you to the department and to the commission i just lastly want to thank tina the intern supervisor that organized all the events and a great mentor to all of them welcome. >> welcome and congratulations i think i mentioned when i first came on the commission we benefit from having angle intern to do something with us that's an issue we should consider we may come up with to benefit did intern in terms of learning great thanks and welcome. >> commissioner moore.

>> director rahaim what unique did you use to get the students if abroad. >> we proposing i mean tina knows better than i do but we broadened the outreach in terms of how we announce the program and different sounds and taping into more and more outlets and venues for mtyinori students programs and different outlets so we're broolgdz out as much as we know that is getting the word out as broadly as we can and try to tap into as many resources as possible. >> are many of the students interns still students. >> yeah. a group of high school students and most i think under and graduate levels thanks. >> commissioners that places us on item 5 no report for the

board of supervisors, board of appeals or the historic preservation commission so we can move on to general public comment snooifd 15 minutes at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> >> any speakers for general public comment? >> thank you. i got the notice about this in our streets i think i figured out how to make this on the big screen we'll peak on this to hopefully and if not i'll talk through it.

>> you got it. >> no way i'll state without techniqueal presentation should my brain retain thirty percent that is 3 times i'd like retain it and the map of our income our average income and the triangle the sutter street as to the west is van ness and the south is market that hosts the highest multi lane one way this commission san jose years ago approved the plan one way streets what happens on a multi way street a lot more vehicle mass if i'll an individual weighing one and 60 versus 4

hundred or 8 hundreds pound cars. >> whoops 35 35 mile-per-hour down the street pretty cool i'll get sound but 35 mile-per-hour what that means in january jacobs i saw a lot females brother the 60 it was a male dominated and jan wrote to the interns wall the death and life of great american cities and the camtc if i'm an individual and want to visit union square and have a lot of vehicle mass moving towards me what do you mean it the retail businesses and less egos on the street chapter two less people are shopping the businesses and walking up and down the street

we have the highest rate of crime that's something we should look at it and as the commission you see not only the largest public realm but public space and a lot of interesting things you guys see in this commission and it would be wonderful to look at those a couple of things on the matter is richmond and 234u heaven have a couple of downtown plans they're looking at reverting their multi one way streets and hundreds doing the same and keep up the good work thank you, sir. >> any other additional general public comment please walk to the podium. >> you have to speak into the microphone please. i just wanted clarification on what the general public comment is and do you wait until your specific issue comes up.

>> if it is - if you're comment is on an agenda item you need to wait until the item is called. >> what. >> unless it is continued what you, you interested in. >> 12. >> you'll wait until that item is called comment? >> general public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners that places us under our regular calendar on item 7 item 6 is continued for case vision zero general plan amendments. >> good afternoon, commissioners lilia planning department staff i'm here with a proposal to make changes to the general plan to

reflect the city's vision zero maria with the sfmta is the co-chair of the task force is here with me as well i'd like to provide a quick overall of go vision zero and provide a high-level overall of the changes i'll note the department is working on a large update a multi year effort until the amendment before you is with vision zero and public safety. >> so just as a reminder vision zero was a citywide goal to create a culture for traffic safety to make sure that they don't result in serious bodily injury and adopted as a policy in 2014 the city a working to achieve vision zero through a number of the designs of the street and campaigns and targeted improvement and changes

to city policy in june of 2014 i was before you with a resolution which of the adopted and the commission passed this resolution in support of vision zero and outlined a number of things the department can help to achieve that goal since the resolution the department implemented congressman's to how we review the straights to look at streetscape and flagged it so those streets and map is available to the public and project sponsors and city staff our street advisory team or f stat is looking at street safety and updated the better check list to make it clear that the straight plan it reviewed and held changes to various departments various divisions within the department.

>> so in mind with all those actions we're proposing to make amendments to reflect those policies as as you may know the general plan it the city guiding document to shape the decisions how the decisions effect the aspects in our everyday life from where we live and work to the design of our parks, to affordable housing implementation in the general plan direct the allocation as well as shape the development the department look at the capital improvements and make finding with the general plan and other agencies requisite our capital improvement in the street changes currently the adjoin plan in reference vision zero norway reflect the work the city is doing around public safety that update is really an implementation action that was

before you two years ago. >> this proposal will amend the both the transportation element and the urban design with the specific policies and minor tech amendment to reflect the vision zero policy specific changes include a new obviously specific to vision zero including for the street safety and a multi disciplinary approach for public safety engineering measures and education campaigns and updated obviously specifically to designing the walking and updated obviously related to the pedestrian network and the key walking streets and finally minor techs amendment to make sure it is consistent throughout the element. >> the department recommends approval of the intent to initiate the amendment and schedule an adoption meeting on

october 6, 7, 8 inhibitions be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> opening up for public comment general public comment on item 7 vision zero. >> good afternoon sue hester he would like to thank the department for struggling with this issue i have been con fronting parts of vision zero since the 340 bryant street what was first time i heard vision zero that was office building erected surrounded by traffic to get into the bay bridge i was asked

that he people that deal with handicapped issues to remind planning department i'm doing it here when you - i absolutely - some of the things that should, factored into the work that is not already is we are a city of hills and hills occasionally are obstructions and in the case of getting into the bridge it was an area none thought about how to get to it is so you weren't by freeway sees ridiculous constraint specific for people in wheelchairs, people have 1r0ish9 problems people that are struggling to get across streets those should be part of can vision zero deals with coming

from my house to here he went over 3 blind hills really it was because my route was interrupted by tree trimming in the street and i realized how vulnerable people waking over those hills in bernal heights are because a car literally cannot see them even if the car is going 10 miles per hour the planning department often forgets that the city is not flat we have mountains in the middle of the city and people and this is a plea from a person from senior disability action that have mobility problems in a wheelchair and they have constraints in walking the city does pay sufficient attention that level of mobility

and it is one of the enormous challenges for vision zero so because he wasn't able to come here today, i told him i'd bring up those issues i walk with a cane but i'm better to get around than people in wheelchairs and vision problems so thank you for doing this. >> and we look forward to hearing. >> thank you ms. hester is there any additional public comment on vision zero. >> one is i was wondering if there's a map of the multi lane one way streets i ask do the mta so if you have a map and the other things this didn't reach vision zero but i call them delivery the uber's and lyft and

have public realm for bus stops to do a roadblock powell spot inform parking garages wide the idea that a car share can share from the to one as a ratio if you have 9 parked cars cios so somewhere on a low block to pull in and block pedestrians from getting injured and if we know the cyclists where the uber and lyft drivers are parking that might be a good idea. >> additional speakers on vision zero item 7. >> good afternoon nicole with walk sf nice to see you all i'm glad to see this transportation element and the urban life of the general plan are being updated for the vision zero

i really appreciate the staffs work on this and at the same time it can go a step further in you know grounding the city in best practices that we know to be true in specific in particular i want to highlight some of the areas where i'd like to see this policy go further i know we're working on a longer than range update i know that will it takes time and it operationally is you know the planning department job to plan for the city and set the this is a great way so policy 23.1 i think specifically the distance between safe crosswalks eight-hundred feet this is where the distance is longer than that people cross mid block and see

that all the time in soma we would like to see in policy 23.8 the last half of sentence is removed no significant pedestrian traffic not having buttons for pedestrians we should - that signal should be there for pedestrians just as for vehicles and policy 25 point one assumes that if there is good access to transit people don't walk as much in areas with limited transit and vehicles that people will not walk as much we know that every transit trip starts and ended with a walk and policy - we would like to see a policy 25.6 that adds side acknowledgement of the green connection that was adopted by

this body and mta so that we're designing pedestrian improvements only the green connections network and then finally i think in policy 26 want 3 focus education on targeting decision makers as well as the public broadly and educating all of everyone making decisions how what the best practices around public safety and vision zero finally there are things not included that could be included in improving the legal marking the legal crack making sure they're safe sea maintaining assess for people opening crosswalks and in requiring pedestrian skill lighting of developers i'll leave it at that thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 7 vision zero.

>> so you'll have to forgive me i have no experience i'm a driver and pedestrian in this city and what inch noticed in the influx of techs owner move-in is that there are more people jaywalking and crossing walks i crosswalks without looking in the direction of cars coming there are more people staring at their phones and more people who are not crazy who are just walking in the lanes of cars and i feel that i don't know if this is pertinent i'd like to see at crosswalks a stop sign for pedestrians so they stop at a crosswalk and a lot both ways and get eye contact with the driver and precede in ireland

there is that cars have the right away and pedestrians respect cars in the city of san francisco because the pedestrian has the right-of-way they're no longer taking responsibility for their lives they're taking things for granted this is disneyland or vaccines beach we have more cars on the roadways of uber and lyft and it is i think to make changes at the crosswalk which educates and i don't know provides industry for pedestrians so they don't take crosswalks for granted they stop jaywalking in the middle of the street and not looking it is i think if it was car

priorities or you know not pedestrian priorities that pedestrians might take their lives more seriously and be less flippant about the safety about their safety about the safety avenue cars driving and the drivers i do work for one of those companies that is enough and being that there is something that is taken for grant by the public that these companies have responsibility which they does not take because of that and so - i guess what i'd like to see more pedestrian responsibility and stop signs that educate pedestrians to stop at crosswalks to make eye contact and then precede. >> thank you additional speakers on item 7

vision zero? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the ongoing effort with vision zero the question - the question i'm asking is since nishtd vision zero in 2014 and today, i see a great shift in where we were then and now and i think it will be picking up on what some of the public commenters made challenges we've not vetted one with the new business model practice by your ridership companies where you wanted and when you want it comes an incredible amount of dangerous lawlessness not met the champs how we going about dissolutions we need to find other mechanisms and some of

them might be hardware and signage and extra changing and light subsequence and another one in the enforcement the amount of danger is literally everyday to walk which i had a totally amazing let me brief tell you i was moving both a crosswalks at an intersection where a car reading the driver reading his text message blocked the sidewalk the crosswalk and when i knocked on his window traffic was going by the yelled at me cannot you walk around me i said in the crosswalk is here at which time he was getting out of his car to take it on with me it was a police car pulled up i said to the officer this

gentleman is blocking the sidewalk the crosswalk and refusing to let me go will you please resolve that he said was he aggressive i was i walked away but that is one instant in a million the same thing happens happens downtown and when the light is turned red for the cars coming around the corner every minute this is where vision zero is a great idea now not created additional amount of safeties but because of changing bills model created nor self-rightness and that basic discussion i think things have to change including sharp elbow oing a pencil. >> campaign. >> one thing we need to look

at putting barriers wherever on the mediums on busy streets to keep jaywalking from concurring one point is lombard particularly in the middle of the innovate connected with drinking people are trying to jaywalk it is dangerous and putting a big enough barrier they canned do it medical cannabis dispensary mid block will discourage it and another is importantly toll drive if a berry detective and starting to proceed towards downtown and people are two lazy to walk a half a block to the stop sign or traffic light and it is still dangerous your not anticipating pedestrians coming through so that's one thing i think 3 could begin to help the other thing is downtown we have a very good system on

montgomery street around some of the larger streets pushing pine and california probably you have a system where there is walk on this and then they actually cross diagonally and the various traffic functions like right turns with the most popular important and the thing that causes problems people trying to make right turns and pedestrians never ended so they're trying to make that right turn at the last second and thereer accidents the same technology throughout the city where there are pedestrian traffic as well as auto traffic to allow - right turns and left turns is dangerous from

according in consolidation with pedestrians the other thing is i think we're adding more bike lanes and this is very good we have designated brick streets and things like that that is to be enforced because we made a designated bike street going up in upper market a nice street parallels and bikes insist on riding on upper market which is really a hazard for us and traffic not anticipating bikes so while we are encouraged bike lanes and encouraged bikes i streets that are quieter that should get them off the streets you don't ride a bike on a freeway not on pine or bush and franklin are one of the streets it should be reserved for auto traffic only the other

thing we have to be defensive when we drive there are a lot of people in parts of city that will ride across the light even though this is red light you'll not combat this children by the age of three or four understand red lights and green lights but obviously some people don't either don't know or think that applies to them that's another possibility of accidents those are some of the biggest things the other thing is traffic calming there which is a time in the not to distant past probably 40 years ago the avenues didn't have streets there were blind intersection one of the cars i own was involved in an, an adam or accident a person alabama

often there are hills involved that makes vision difficult so there are a lot of places we're trying to get a stop sign on about winston because people coming out of stones town and race in time to make the light so for on deaf ears for the traffic department is considering but we see that all the time people trying to cross that crosswalk so there are a lot of things it what about done as traffic calming is not just you know cars but vision zero has to take into account pedestrians, automobiles and bicycles and unfortunately, the worst development a mobile

e-mail 10 years ago maybe 14 i mean people went home and read their e-mail i don't have one of those thing is it really so important you put your life at risk or other people's lives at risk you'll find out about that when you get home or in a safe place to turn on your device and like driving and texting some sort rule against that that is another thought. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yeah, just a really quickly first of all, a young lady came up with a change if you can hand this up it has a lot of things i text a lot well - it that would be helpful make a decision like today.

>> oh, initiating. >> this was ann an initiation there will be meeting following this we'll want they're written comments. >> thank you okay. thank you for the correction fellow commissioners a couple really quick things first of all, the first one is one item here in the motion about pedestrian on classifies and not clear if that was a policy could staff maybe clarify on the policy 25.4 and unclear and other things about the pedestrian on and on classifies. >> it is and that's fine and

maybe before the next hearing get it clarified and the other thing do we have anyone if the bike coalition here or anyone biking or cycling anyone yeah. >> here's my comment and association hearing we'll see this again saw a lot of references to sort of separating prioritizing public safety and separating traffic from pedestrians i didn't see anything related to sfrait the cyclists or biking from pedestrians or separating biking from traffic i think that policy 27.8 gets there but that would be great to make sure that the cycling community the reason i bring that up is there's a whole vision zero the poster vision

zero project in the embarcadero how to reenvision the traffic along that stretch from kings street kind of fourth street and kings if you don't have anything in the plan that outlines the city's opinion how cyclists and pedestrians entering mix if it help projects like that i want to make sure the language sort of reflects what the cycling e cycling community other than that i'm looking forward it be part of adjoin plan and looking forward for more comments in the nurture future. >> one thing the additions are related to the pedestrians mostly it is out of eight the bike section of the transportation element is still

in there are and a now number of policies that reflect our bike safety and routes is not in here because we're not touching it. >> i know that 27. 8 specifically called out bifurcating for the vision zero for public safety i don't remember if the bike plan there's not specific language in the bike plan about the separation of the uses in that bike plan so vision zero because around pedestrian safety it reflects the visions for how those modes of transit interact i understand there is bike lanes but to make sure it is reflected

in the policy adjustments for vision zero. >> we make sure their consistent. >> that's all. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks also thanks to walk sf that would be helpful i'll go one step further to ask them to have them in the second packet so the commission can have that at their fingertips and want to move to schedule a public hearing after october 6th. >> second. >> some comments i have interesting enough i'm assuming then when we get large projects with the developments they'll be finding in our transportation element based on the specific project for vision zero for pedestrians is that the case? >> if - what you're asking

when we make the general plan finding in the element projects specifically with the sections i think sure we can look at how we do that and we cite sections. >> especially on the key sites we've had several projects like 9055 street was an issue with loading and unloading on a busy street and the people needed to move into their apartment had to walk around the corner with the conflicts with the pedestrians and other vehicles so anything that you do to help us to make sure the projects also consistent or identify like ms. hester brought up about the office building in the middle of an that would be helpful. >> this is what we do to

provide consistency. >> excellent he echo all the others comments the commissioners made one thing if scares the heck out of me is skate boarders they're not walking are driving their skateboarding and sometimes on the sidewalks and in the street and no helmets on i don't want to happen it won't be pretty. >> director rahaim and before we finalize it i want to thank lilly and the staff for their work i think that to the gentleman's comment on one way streets i've been struck by the fact it the decisions that were made 20 maybe thirty years in turning streets south of market and the tenderloin is a one way streets was a time we remember united health care workers those streets as a way to get cars quickly from and to downtown and

not understanding the long term implementations now we're in a situation to look at restoring that we're indeed south of market in the central soma plan and in the eir looking at at the turning fulsome the entirety of fulsome and a lot of support for that that make sense and a lot of interest in doing the same in the tenderloin on a work plan in the coming years it is important i think that is important factor in terms of safety and pedestrian safety and having traffic move faster and frankly and need for less crowded streets it is one of those things we definitely wanted to look at in the long run. >> hayes street was made into a one-way street it helped. >> commissioner moore. >> what you were saying came at the heels the freeway revolt with a big split between to

those people that agreed with that and didn't making streets the one way you made a even if a policy of 25 mile-per-hour and people go down the streets 40 and 50 and 60 miles per hour. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to initiate and schedule a public hearing on or after october 6th on that motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore. >> commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 8 housing balance report planning code amendments. >> good afternoon, commissioners sdirgz i'm

presenting a code for the inclusion about the withdrawal in housing units by owner move-in but before i continue i'd like to provide supervisor kim's time to present to you. >> good afternoon commissioner vice president richards and commissioners april 2, 3, 4 from supervisor kim's thank you for considerably that legislation today it is a simple change to clarify the intent of our the legislation that we sponsored several years ago this is the housing balance legislation for the production of affordable housing in san francisco this was in conjunction with prop k that the supervisors supported with the mayor at the time to insure we are providing 33 percent affordable housing in the city and up to 50 percent

affordable housing including the middle-income that is an important effects to make sure we're tracking how we're doing towards that goal on by annual basis so in the spring and in the fall that legislation and our legislation we intended to understand and loss of housing due to the loss of rent-controlled units and silent on the issue of owner move-in eviction i want to thank the planning department staff and teresa and her staff for including the owner move-in evictions the thinking that was important to not make that file and really make clear our intent and prairie significant this no-fault eviction has been siege on upward trend so i think that

is important that we track this information this is i want to also just in terms of report i think we had 3 reports since the package of that legislation and being useful information to shift our policy thinking to also preserve and acquire existing units we are producing more affordable housing but we're also losing rent-controlled units at the rate of every 7 affordable unit we're producing losing 5 rent-controlled units that is significant and something we need to continue to attract and develop policies around and so i ask for your support and clarifying including this as part of housing balance report and something that is recorded in all the reports so far and want to make it clear in the

original legislation and then i wanted to speak also to the reports and the reporting deadlines currently dollar reporting deadlines are i believe april 1st and september 1st and in this staff report is makes clear the desire to sync up the reports with other reports that planning is rirtdz to do like the housing inventory and the pipeline reports i think that makes a lot of sense and so we would be okay with moving the data to april 1st and no, i'm sorry is it april 1st? and october 1st. >> so these are dates that are originally february 1st and august 1st you've been moving the dates i think this is important we maintain the suggestion to have a hearing a

month after those reports are due the intent with the april hearing is to have this hearing coincide with budget hearings in the - if there's a desire to influence the budget in such a way to address the data we've seen from the housing balance report we'll ask you consider to have the hearing no matter april 15th rather than may first the mayors budget submission is at the end of may will give us time to have those kinds of conversation that the budget and finance or go land use committee thank you. >> the commissioners can ask questions of you before you

leave are you leaving what is protocol should we ask questions of the lady. >> however, you do jefferson if the aid is willing to stay we'll reserve questions. >> mr. sanchez. >> in the case reports they've considering a loss of owner move-in evictions and the housing balance report the loss is over 4 thousand 1 hundred units during etch 10 year balance that is reporting you as you may know rent-controlled units are an international part of housing stock the loss is not only because san franciscans lost their housing but because the housing is extremely difficult to replace therefore tracking the magnitude of a loss is an important endeavor it is important because it is one purpose of the housing balance

report as much as it concerns itself with the share of affordable housing as a total share of the city's affordable housing stock the department is in support of proposed ordinance we firmly believe that further clarifications can be made we're proposing that similar language to a harmonize the language and the department is also in support of the publishing dates as mentioned in earlier by april we are proposing to move the march publishing date to april and the other to september and also recommend moving the annual hearing from april to may although we're rialto entertain the april 15th at a time as mentioned this is moving those dates are help to coordinate the report we have to put together

that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez and opening up for public comment on the housing balance report planning code amendment is there any public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wu. >> thanks so thank you for you know the department and the supervisors office for all this work i think that report is really important i used it yesterday in a visit to sacramento with h pd i know moving the report dates to align with the other reports annual housing inventory that's fine i want to make sure that report is not consumed as a stand alone report macro life easier for the staff and supportive of having the hearing date internet april 15th that is

important for get ready for budget season to helping work on housing issues. >> commissioner johnson. >> nope thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you i have a few comments i can see that owner move-in is a type of eviction that makes a lot of sense it should be included amongst those it is certainly the owners right to more often it is a loss of rental housing but not a loss of ava senior citizen that has a rental and no longer employed or on is they will occupy their own home again which is very affordable to them so it probably might be more affordable under rent control

but $7,000 and month once somebody is absent their rate goes up to market-rate housing so that's the point i'm making trying to lump affordability and rent control didn't make sense it is not the same thing because often rerltdz are occupied by people that have country homes and use their san francisco home as a place illegal their supposed to be there 50 percent of the time but my patients are saying we can afford we have this rendering in the city and use it as a city home and put our money towards buying something else to the general shrubs shuns are not good idea and spoke about the 41 percent

loss of units was that a 10 year period mr. sanchez. >> every time the report is published it publishing u publishes a report of prevented units 41 hundred the latest was 5 thousand. >> over what period of time. >> 10 years. >> pardon i think 3 includes units no longer rent-controlled units or units no longer in income required affordable status. >> that's what i understand correct that's correct. >> no, i asked one or the other. >> both although i don't know how many units are being restricted. >> few 41 hundred includes unit no longer rent-controlled units i pointed out a couple of instances they're not it

possible as rent-controlled units 41 hundred is one percent of 1 thousand plus housing units we have i know newer ones are not in rent-controlled it is relative total housing stock. >> yeah. to the affordable housing produced in each 10 year period is roughly then thousand this is when it is a significant loss. >> i'm saying making the division 10 thousand restricted air force permanently affordable those are not the same as rent-controlled units you shouldn't be considering to the things as the same thing your alumni apples and oranges and making them sounds like the same thing they're both valuable and one figure shows actual affordable units and as a total number and any that of tempoed

or like housing projects and subtract those and carry the rent-controlled units on a separate category and not lump the two together that would be properly done i mean adding the things trying to be done are fairly minor but adding other evictions didn't make it any worse but i think the two things should be handled separately. >> okay some comments i have i guess someone commissioner antonini's i think one and 77 units under rent control i think the department will be doing a survey this dovetails into that one of the first stabs urging the 5 m project a map around the site that was an eye opener what was protected and under city control and nonprofits doing an effort i know financial but

really would be informative the numbers here are estimates so harrison and 4 thousand of those are 2 percent didn't seem like much commissioner antonini but if you're that person that has to leave the city it is important we're dealing with people's lives and when we are dealing with numbers i want to make sure we realize that the question i have is since we've had this report how is this data used i mean, i get the report every year and in district 8 is losing nor housing produced in district 4 was terrible what are we are doing with this stuff. >> i think as commissioner wu just mentioned a lot of advocates use it to tell the story what the city's experiencing in terms of housing

crisis helped us to justify and really make clear the reason to pursue what was kind of a fledging idea around the small sites acquisition program the desire to protect buildings that are undertreat of ellis act or other types of evictions those types of policies and programs are valuable i know that is not at the same scale as continuing to build nor affordable housing we absolutely need to do but the scale of loss of rent-controlled units through the aspect active market some of the things we've been open about on the policy making side in terms of what we are trying to make as a priority i think that also helps to justifies the need

and desire for eviction services given the loss of rent-controlled units or rent-controlled units and also the advocacy around the ellis act at the state level. >> where do buy outs figure in those are they consumed in the data as a separate - >> that's not considered buy outs the information that the rent board is tracking through the legislation that was passed recently but didn't reflect the buy outs i think that is just an added piece of information that even makes this situation even more desire in terms of the loss of rent-controlled units sure. >> i a couple of several other things first, as an aside don't want to get down to raffle i

have friends in the real estate industry they tell me some of the things going on and some of things i'm hearing no-fault evictions become fault evictions so somebody owns the property if you don't pay the rent 3 months in a row i have a reason to evacuate you i don't have a stain on any deed all those things are happening and a lot of backdoor things going on i want to make sure this is not an airtight thing there those ways forces people to gain the system take note of that we play a role as a commission two of these last week and maybe more than two we've approved demolitions and reconstruction on rent-controlled units with 416

street and franklin i know mr. tony but built prior to 1979 we're democrat oing units we're playing a role as well for those new units under rent control or not under rent control where is the line drawn. >> i don't know at answer to that question you're proposing but the demolition of those rerltdz should be reflected in the data in terms of loss and how those in any units get recorded based on i don't know the exact. >> sure. >> i was talking with commissioner on the building inspection and wondering if it is the planning code that drove or the planning code we approved demolition on a building i'll not mention the building in the

- the building department said it was an alteration and my question does that mean one of the buildings was created with the new unit they're under rent-controlled we need to understand our part in helping this process out understanding where the decisions impacts are. >> commissioners made i know that is when a new koupts i certificate of occupancy is issued no longer under rent-controlled i think that dbi makes it determination. >> i keep a wall up on the building and demolishing demolish the floors and ceiling he bring the photos will i get a new certificate of occupancy there was nothing to occupy. >> we can could check with dbi and how that works i think that one of the things we commissioners talked about we've been talking about this and been

pretty consistent but all over the map when we have demo projects i'd like to thinks and the commissioners are those units under rent control and will those take unit off the market it is important for making decisions in trying to be consistent last question is amy talk to people and we have conversations will build for housing i'll buy that condominium on valencia street that is 14 hundred a square foot in construction versus something else right around the corner in a rent-controlled; right? i'm trying to understand and ask people who have gone through the process if you had a choice to buy a renderings or new compromised what would you do we're seem as commissioners and

everybody is no you'll increase the supply and however one of the things i'm hearing rent-controlled units with tenants in them are cheaper more affordable to the person burying is a weird dichotomy and i'm trying to resolve what's the impact of new construction really omi - as the a new condo on valeting not a one to one i want to understand that and two more points i don't want to monopolize it rent control didn't mean the agreement is cheap but rent as be stabilized

in 10 or 20 years that expensive $7,000 a month will be cheaper than if you had to more often 10 or 20 years that's what rent stabilization not a guarantee things will be cheap over time we tend 0 rationalize the rent-controlled we say that is $10,000 nobody can afford if we're a fact that off the market we had one 1 on union street we asked them to get out of the office and put it back on the office with the idea that over time it had been cheaper and try to be as consistent we're getting a lot of demos and project that involving rent-controlled units and one last one this is completely off

this subject we consistently faced with section 317 that says i know we had changes 317 around demo mergers and elimination of units with single-family units we still have 20 percent rule that is not affordable and it would be administratively approved to be demolished i structural with and lay this on supervisor kim is that $1.6 million just above it not affordable to the vast for the right of people maybe 5 or 7 percent demoing those housing they're only affordable to a quarter of a percentage that's another issue i struggle with here we're really kind of

pacific heights the city and novelist is ground zero i leave you with that you'll put in your file and work on some point in the future and the original 317 last december that provision for the single-family units was included as a cu and it was taken out i don't know why. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you so thank you staying with us i'm highly supportive and my quick comments a motion to support with some modifications just a couple of things and commissioner johnson i wasn't going to comment it was ufos change and - i think we are challenged with consistency because of did i comscotomies b

we've been supportive i don't know what the right answer we definitely don't change our minds on where we control from a policy stand point but project by project we're faced with opposite there and then certainly you know you made a comment about is rent-controlled with a tenant in there cheaper are you going to that potential buyer attempted by new condos it domestic violence we were talking about how the buy outs and things that sort of go on behind the scenes one of the things project by project and maybe anguish thinking they'll be able to handle that situation into a buy out but just situations that are way more challenging that people will not take and come in and newer to the city nobody wants

to take on it gets messy if you don't have a - >> can i my point our thinking is boundary if you have a new unit we assume we've heard comments that new buyer will buy the units and consider not a project by project but different 0 not completely binary. >> that's the point. >> just before i make my motion with the data in the housing balance report that addresses some of the questions and possible we'll be here next year talking about adding more things to the housing balance i don't know if we want to talk about adding in the buy out this is recently online but look at that next year and maybe more data that would be helpful with that i'd like to make a motion to approve. >> appreciate. >> no an approval with

recommendations. >> oh. >> to the board of supervisors and i make a motion to the first one the suggestion language on laws in the protected units and the second to amend the dates to october and april 1st with the annual hearing april 15th. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> another question for you. >> do you know if we track c ic condo conversions. >> yeah. so the initiation or the to this case process once we have that currently in the housing balance report of calculations. >> because - did you want - did you - >> we do aggregates if the

housing inventory but do condominium conversion in the agency gave out i like having all the data it, it's when you aggregate it it gets a little bit lose because owner move-ins by going an omi - the buy outs are down to rationalize those units in selling the owners are trying to sell them as rentals or tics are not removed from rent control their effectively

removed from rent control so again, i like having all the data when we say removed if rent control i prefer seeing that i mean demonstration are removed for 10 years and fiscally removed with condominium conversion with an eviction of a condominium better to be safe than sorry but those numbers are low 200 and year because people bought their way into condominium conversion but we track the evictions instead of the actual condominium conversion and tic people don't rent them back out after the owner move-in it is a suggestion i like having the data but i think that drawing the conclusion they're removed from rent control district attorney happen until a register in a tic but having all the data helps

everybody that is making policies that other people's money lead to. >> would it help if we include a clarification on o m i removing the condo for a indefinite personally period we're not able to track when we come back. >> right. >> so effectively they become they're removed. >> but again, if we track will affordability in the city a tenant leaves and i agree with commissioner vice president richards it is ultimately done so why again up reason all the data is good i'd like to see buy out data and tic data but ultimately you aggregate it as the loss of rent-controlled

units it gets loss a little bit if you're not looking i think your short tripping the loss of units when we only do condominium conversion evictions and something can buy somebody out arrest owner move-in to a condominium conversion so - i get confused with you aggregate it take into account it i know that is hard there are different rules for different types but ultimately you lose them by demo or through a condo both a tic that changes the ownership structure. >> if i may before i call on commissioner moore i heard commissioner hillis say a division between respective and rent control if you displace a

tenant but under rent-controlled unless demolished or assuming a larger units it is kind of over lapsing and messy but director all and tells us united states the way one of the things when we did the 5 m i believe you appointed someone in our team they checked the tax filing of the parcel with the administration fee take into consideration on or not there are ways to figure out if it is rent by whether that special fee is tacked on obviously people don't realize it but a good indication is that rented. >> commissioner moore. > in the area of data one significant gray area that is easily 6 years ago when that was first brought up and those are the numbers of vacant unit about

6 years ago they ran data about 33 thousand dwelling units which stay empty many of these units were counted stand empty today and now in attaching overseeing vacant units to either evictions or supposed owner move-in or getting out of rental business a large resource still to be captured units that one may have to be made available president chiu was tdr in looking at it but difficult to legally do that that particular issue still is a big question mark for me, i wish we'd find a handle of a baseline how many units are unaccompanied and why and what are the

newcomer subtraction of units that could be available a phenomenal question he happen to live in an area the number is straefrlg large i'll take you on an evening walk you can enjoy the former rental homes they're all empty and think that is a question which we need to get a handle on. >> when we had a project last week 1615 grant 22 place to have i don't know how many. >> 16 unit. >> 16 unit sitting under rent-controlled units but the attendants were ellis acted seven years earlier to your point when i first came on the commission reviewed the vacate unit counts that the department did with spur and we have that report around 25 thousand units and roughly

will 10 thousand were not counted for meaning they're not for sale or under construction the hard knot was 10 thousand i think that was what commissioner moore is referring to i'm sure the department will get you that report neither here nor there two years ago it was two years ago. >> commissioner antonini. >> that's a very good point the city should try to find owners they're willing to talk about be why their units are not rented and most of it operationally is fear because of laws they feel have something in getting a tenant and not get rid of the tenants and not involved in buy outs but possible lawsuits and they own the property out right so it make sense for them to wait until they have a family member to come up it or leave it vacant

you can't force people a lot of it it the types of tenancies control measures that exist in san francisco i'm not saying in their necessarily bad but deterrent from many owners putting in their units on the market we hear me market-rate is luxury housing on the other hand, and some are less than one thousand square feet and the price is determined by the market san francisco a desirable market figure you take the same unit it would be in stockton maybe sells for a third of was it sells for here that's the way it is and a desirable place for probably a circuit century and one half prices are very high and a lot of the tension exists we only have 1/3rd of the population that owns their

residence and thirds are renter half of the national average and work to encourage people to buy their own homes and promote policies that encourage the creation of more hopper opportunities and been the opposite was a lot of the things like guess condominium conversion now you can't get a tic get both a lottery for 10 years because of the accommodation in the pipeline tic is ouch a way sometimes used for investors but for people simply 3 of them getting together and a buying a building and living as tenants before they split them out as condos that's a good system those are a lot of my points i think we have to really look at you know what we have here in

san francisco and probably not going to reverse the market we can't determine who gets to live in san francisco we have to protect people who are living here that want to stay living here and trying to change the exterior economic mass state of san francisco is something the city is not going to do and probably will be ill-advised to do so, anyway i think that one of the things i always was taught you know buy you're own place didn't matter where you buy but own your own property save money and drive a crappy car but buy you're own place i be that is expensive in san francisco but a place to find something you can own. >> commissioner wu. >> i just want to ask a clarification on the motion i think the april 15th date did you want the specific language

no later on the april 15th because of budget. >> no later than is more flexible than having a hearing was that the motion on. >> by april 15th that would be great great. >> thank you for your the comment we'll take that back to the supervisor and work with the planning department staff and the data team all the data is important i heartened to hear you, you think that is important in terms of your role as commissioners. >> thank you commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with said modifications commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and

commissioners that places us on 9 abc for cases geary boulevard conditional use authorization slope boulevard and case no. 15 at the san bruno a conditional use authorization those are 3 separate locations, however, they're the same project manager and might be wise to consolidate those into one. >> i need to make a closure i have a holding at at&t for the 15e7 and asked what the properties impacts would be on those 3 locations didn't rise to the level i'll be to recuse myself thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner vice president richards and

members of the commission and staff todd kennedy with the san francisco planning department staff the 3 the item before you a request foyer conditional use authorizations to allow formula retail use at&t to operate in 3 different locations here in the city the proposed locations are the outer richmond on geary boulevard are the lakeshore plaza and the excelsior on san bruno avenue all 3 locations are vacant and occupied by a formal formula retail radio shack less than 5 thousand square feet they all are located in the ground floor in neighborhoods commercial district and vacant minor signage are proposed for each location under the zoning code a conditional use authorization is required for this formula retail use to operate in those neighborhoods commercial districts

to date the department has not received any opposition 0 those proposals, however, for the slope location the department has received one acquire from the neighborhood group discussing the plaza and the property management not related to the formula retail use for the geary location the department has one letter from the great geary merchant and property owners associations in support of the project. >> the department recommends approval of the all 3 proposals and buildings those are necessary and desirable for other following reasons the project sites are vacant and not displace any existing tenants and not only increase side concentration of the establishment by one percent each, the projects will not be expected to effect the traffic parents and served by the public transit addressed lakeshore plaza sites has a large auto

parking lot to serves the plazas 5 hundred plus parking spaces are provide and at the meat the planning commission performance based guidelines and meet the applicable planning code and necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood and that concludes my presentation. department staff kimberly and i and others are hear and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> opening up for public comment on those 3 locations. >> project sponsor. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> thank you i'm keep any remarks brief tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor we appreciate the staff report and staffs support for the 3 locations we feel like it is

they're pretty stared applications with the formula retail use in vacant spaces where formula retail use recently exist not proposing any examinations or interior changes just signage those are busy commercial districts served by transit there important location for at&t those are not just difficult rail stores as you may know they provide important services cellular and internet services expanding to their customers so it is important for at&t and their customers for them to be geographically convenient and as staff said we're not aware of any opposition to any of the 3 locations but are available for answer any questions or address any concerns you may have i'm going to turn it over to to our

project architect a representative from spring communications here for any questions questions and appreciate our consideration and appreciate our support thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon i feel like everything is said we are converting radio shack stores that were purchased the leased were purchased last spring when radio shack left we are replying signage for at&t and signage it either remain the same in the same locations in some cases eliminated not visible from the street and otherwise doing sales remodels and bring it up to today's modern standards.

>> thank you. >> now opening up for public comment on any of those 3 locations on item 9 a speaker cards. >> seeing no public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> this commission historically has been in support of formula retail use stores being opted out by other formula retail use i regret that the sliding livelyness of radio shack hike our corner store electronics store is not there but that aside i move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree you know it is i guess people not buying radios anymore it would be nice to have one once again i've been l.n. to something if the car i leave the

program on and trying to convert so to a radio signal the show is over i'm in support of 0 proposed measures. >> thank you commissioners to approve with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson excuse me - commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero the commission will take a lunch >> okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. commissioners we're starting without a chair you need to

elect a chair to run the meeting at this time. >> thank you can we make that time limited i think that will be until the chair returns. >> okay i'd like to elect commissioner wu as a temporary chair. >> second. >> thank you on that motion then commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner hillis and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner wu you're the chair of this meeting. >> commissioners commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on items 10 ab for cases 651 geary street conditional use authorization and 2014 at the 651 geary street you'll consider a conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a rear yard modification. >> good afternoon,

commissioners tina department staff an geary street with a construction of a 13 story one and plus mixed use building seven hundred square feet of retail and 3 thousand square feet of common and office space open space and private balconies is include 26 parking spaces below grade in the mid block between john's on the ceda of 30th street it requires a constructive to approve the new construction for 50 feet in height and 80 feet base height and rhd the compliance is constituent in your packets the department of these it is satisfying and necessary and desirable because it replaces a vacant lot with 52 dwelling units 6 are permanently

affordable historic preservation commission with our staff ashths architects have find this with the secretary of interior standards and uptown and bayview hunters point overall massachusetts and scale and 8 project locations and finishes and empowering design and treatment and parapet and design to date, no public comment regarding the project the departments supports it because it meditates the policies and procedures and rosa parks replaces with it consistent with the neighborhood pecks i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm peter wong the practicing promise for

planning international r-6 and planners in the city and on behalf of the success development i'll be presenting your design proposal for the 651 geary street the project in front of you today interest to keep it short i think i'll just help me with the - >> cover the planning and design process and the project deception and the variance and closing remarks. >> again, the project history - since 2004 the architect are

different owner and a conditional use what granted and as a result of the economic downturn and the subsequent code changes and selected an architect under the current owner sure. >> a demolition permit as you can see the site is a cleared and in 2014 go gone through multiple openings and to arrive at the proposed design i'm here for the conditional use permit and the variance on the rear yard and related exposure the used to be a building onsite

that was a office building. >> can you pull the microphone over when our speaking. >> okay before it was a 20 thousand second story office building on that site. >> in working out the site th second story office building on that site. >> in working out the site context we were looking at the massing and choose the bulk and mass and massing of the building to the surrounding with major sixth district on the north and south exterior of the building some of the 3-d modeling that was done with the project

one of the historical projects to maintain the water as a foot's body and head and the building as a major setback on the 12 floor where we would have a roofer terrace and garden that is shard in open space as a community room and then at this point i think that some of the massing issues we're working with to make sure that we were able to align certain elements of adjoining property on the east and west side we've talked about working the top of building where it will be a articulated cornice and patented railings on the top

like i said this year 6 unit that are affordable units 52 units. >> the issue remaining right now is the rear yard code compliant is not provided currently in the scheme of all the abutting lots that are constructed without a code compliant rear yard all around us pursuant to section 249. the reduction of rear yard requirement in the west market north of market residential special use district is permitted and the proposed design will not adverse effect the open space for the rear yard of the existing abutting

properties 12 of the 52 units have private open spaces at the earn and the 40 units will require 48 square feet per unit as a common open space 19 hundred 68 square feet 2000 plus square feet of common open space with the amenity totally nearly 27 hundred square feet and align with the adjoining neighbors in matching the setbacks and additional open space amenity that are provided beyond the code requirements. >> so with that, closing remarks and - the project will add 52 dwelling units to the housing stock and walkable and transit rich area with the mixed

use development 6 affordable units on site and compatible with the character in terms of height and scale and massing the project is necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood and the project will replace a vacant lot with retail activating industry and ask for the granting of the conditional use and variance request bans the planning department staff application thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson >> thank you i have one question about that project so far so to the staff report is references there maybe changes for the need of affordable housing based on the outcome of prop c we're beyond

that what are the requirements i think the calculation for a number of units is 12 percent i think this should be 13 or 14. >> we talked about with the attorney office and the election results have not been certified we expect them to be certified later and until then we're directed to keep the affordable housing but it is subject to the charter amendment at the 13 and a half percent this is 70 dwelling units. >> okay. thank you.

>> - they'll be modified to correct the number of affordable units. >> okay. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i like the project i like the design and it is is contemporary and has all the elements of older buildings around it in the setbacks are appropriately at the time sets on the top two floors so i think this is well done and understand that because there is a rear yard modification being asked there is also an exposure based on the fact the arranged is less than code compliant but given the location and the fact is that buildings this big it is hard to meet the letter of the law for a rear yard it sounds like that is fine to me.

>> i'll make a motion to approve. >> commissioner hillis. >> question for the architect on the side of building this to those west side a building with some lot line windows i i know you accommodate their let that seems go substantially more windows than significant windows do you know on the adjacent building what those windows look into and caveat discussions without the projector owner. >> not yet he know the windows have again code compliant with that it will be facing the lightwell in terms of light and air it will meet the requirements and in looking at them there be a picture of them. >> none where the older building

exist and some on the top but look to be secondary type of fixed windows. >> yeah. >> you're talking about the elements. >> well the lightwell definitely you kind of match that lightwell not exactly but there are some windows on the property line. >> yes. >> okay i mean, i like the design it is done well and integrated into the area and be commissioner walker. >> it is a national preservation district that is a level to i building that requires really careful

attention i think that the way the building is laid out is interesting i do have a question following up on commissioner hillis to the east to the west side from floor 4 to 7 if you look at the drawings a want 333 there is is a question on regarding the lightwells what happens in the adjoining building what rooms are in facing those side walls eye i like that to be answered and staff look at that we need to carefully consider what we do at that location the other point i'd like to rays for me personally the building didn't quite meet the high enough standards relative to a

historic preservation and here's the reasons i have problems with gastroand would like the department to representative on its on policy regarding the ground floor raising we're saying that retail has to have clear rather than typical glazing please correct me if i - i'll ask in a moment let me go through my thoughts the second point i'd like to raise is a i talked with the historic preservation and called tim frye and talked about with members of the historic preservation commission just to kind of here myself go through a couple of questions this group is not historic preservation commission and look at it delve they shared port for the staff to continue to work

with the historic preservation commission tim frye and the architecture review to comment and advise us on particular facade the way the bay is done the bay is not quite following the guidelines of they design relative to the open and closed elements the issue the detailing on, on the demonstration is absent not pronounced eloquent to create at shadow and depth we like on traditional facades these are thoughts i discussed with the people i mentioned and the building makes good moves to design including the rear yard is well-handled relative to the two unit deficiency not at all

relative to brrnd that ♪ contrast i'm able to support the approval of project but like to see the historic preservation commission staff and the architectural review group historic preservation commission to comment no jurisdictions over this project but the discussion would help bring this just forward in a manner i think is required for the circumstances and we do have a significantly large responsibility when we have a building in a national district so if the maker of the motion to say prepared to push the ongoing discussion to the department with the historic preservation commission staff and the architectural review

group to work on this a little bit more i can support and second your motion >> yeah. i agree with all the things were brought up by commissioner moore questioning whether the glazing on greater should be clear and the green glass is appropriate in other parts of building and work with the historical design and make sure it is meeting the criteria as closely as possible i noticed in many believes in the area the difference between the non-restricted bay element and the bay element the oldest building will have stucco at the base but some sort of contrast between the bay in terms of color might be a good way to do it so, anyway i'm supportive and

anything else that exposure wants to add. >> for clarity commissioner kwon of the conditions is clear you want to work with the historic preservation commission department staff - was the condition to actually have the architectural review committee have that review it. >> that's what mr. frye and they thought that was a good i personally it is an informal advisory but they decided to do i'm okay with that has a maker of the motion however, i would not want to see any dramatic changes in the basic form that is established this is done with well with the people with the modifications as brought up by